View Full Version : Space Shuttle Orbiter retirement
Phantom Eye had a rough landing over the weekend. Broke landing gear.
cameraman
06-05-12, 10:51 PM
that frame is located at coordinates: 34.958677,-117.883848, which is the boondocks of Edwards AFB.
Wonder if they'll leave it in place?
[edit] if you scroll to the right, you can seem them prepping that huge new drone Phantom Eye.
Just to the right of the frame are eight aircraft in a row. Look like retired test aircraft. What is the one on the far left?
1) even if it didn't have engines my geuss is that the cover is less for protection and more for keeping the 747/Shuttle combo being an aerodynamic wreck and 2) if it didn't have real engines it must have had something in it that exactly mimiced the weight distribution of real engines otherwise wouldn't the glide tests be pretty useless?
Wasn't suggesting it was there for protection. It's obviously there for aero on the plane, but that's also not necessary on the barge, so it's there for both purposes is my guess. And yes, I'm sure that the flight testing performed in the 70s had to simulate the balast the actual engines provided. Note that they also flight tested Enterprise with the cover on:
http://www.nycaviation.com/newspage/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/enterprise-first-flight-630-620x413.jpg
-Kevin
Just to the right of the frame are eight aircraft in a row. Look like retired test aircraft. What is the one on the far left?
This? (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=34.958677,-117.883848&ie=UTF8&ll=34.95882,-117.883079&spn=0.000548,0.001206&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs&hnear=0x80c3cafefecfe12d:0x73ea8588eed27a7b,%2B34% C2%B0+58%27+18.84%22,+-117%C2%B0+52%27+51.93%22&gl=us&t=h&z=20)
My first thought was a Typhoon or Kfir, but those don't seem to match.
:confused:
stroker
06-06-12, 08:06 AM
This? (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=34.958677,-117.883848&ie=UTF8&ll=34.95882,-117.883079&spn=0.000548,0.001206&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs&hnear=0x80c3cafefecfe12d:0x73ea8588eed27a7b,%2B34% C2%B0+58%27+18.84%22,+-117%C2%B0+52%27+51.93%22&gl=us&t=h&z=20)
My first thought was a Typhoon or Kfir, but those don't seem to match.
:confused:
Based on the overall planform it looks like a Tomcat to me, with some goofy strakes, no moveable wings (a Delta wing) and a reduction in vertical stabilizers from two to one.
Edit: Can't possibly be a '14, as it's too small compared to the '16s just down the line. I have no idea WTF it is.
nissan gtp
06-06-12, 08:16 AM
it's a single engine, might be this http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-051-DFRC.html
This? (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=34.958677,-117.883848&ie=UTF8&ll=34.95882,-117.883079&spn=0.000548,0.001206&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs&hnear=0x80c3cafefecfe12d:0x73ea8588eed27a7b,%2B34% C2%B0+58%27+18.84%22,+-117%C2%B0+52%27+51.93%22&gl=us&t=h&z=20)
My first thought was a Typhoon or Kfir, but those don't seem to match.
:confused:
If you pan to the southwest you'll find an area deleted. All black.
I heard they already broke it.
A5cneCgNA9U
-Kevin
it's a single engine, might be this http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-051-DFRC.html
I knew I'd seen a more delta-winged F-16 somewhere. :thumbup:
This would be my guess. Good view of that odd wing here (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/HSR-Wings.html).
Found this experimental version of F-15 (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=34.958677,-117.883848&ie=UTF8&ll=34.919947,-117.88587&spn=0.000762,0.00142&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs&hnear=0x80c3cafefecfe12d:0x73ea8588eed27a7b,%2B34% C2%B0+58%27+18.84%22,+-117%C2%B0+52%27+51.93%22&gl=us&t=h&z=20) on the flight line.
If you pan to the southwest you'll find an area deleted. All black.
I noticed the storage units just to the right of those 8 aircraft. They look like they are in place to take away sight lines of that drone just off to the right of them.
I first thought those were jet blast deflectors.... who knows?
I will spend way too much time of this now. :saywhat:
So what are these (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=34.958677,-117.883848&ie=UTF8&ll=34.947195,-117.885744&spn=0.001524,0.00284&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs&hnear=0x80c3cafefecfe12d:0x73ea8588eed27a7b,%2B34% C2%B0+58%27+18.84%22,+-117%C2%B0+52%27+51.93%22&gl=us&t=h&z=19)? Predator drones?
Too big for Predators, I think. Probably Global Hawks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Hawk
cameraman
06-06-12, 01:32 PM
Too big for Predators, I think. Probably Global Hawks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Hawk
The three Global Hawks were the first, sixth and seventh aircraft built under the original DARPA Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration program, and were made available to NASA when the Air Force had no further need for them.
They be parked.
If you pan to the southwest you'll find an area deleted. All black.
Drone flight operations buildings?
They be parked.
Just north of those three drones are the (2) 747s used to ferry the shuttle around. Guess they're parked too.
Interesting bone yard with what looks like a P-51 with a bunch of underwing stores on it.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=34.958677,-117.883848&ie=UTF8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs&hnear=0x80c3cafefecfe12d:0x73ea8588eed27a7b,%2B34% C2%B0+58%27+18.84%22,+-117%C2%B0+52%27+51.93%22&gl=us&t=h&ll=34.940806,-117.89759&spn=0.00082,0.001258&z=20&vpsrc=6
Interesting bone yard with what looks like a P-51 with a bunch of underwing stores on it.
Next to the RV and boat park? :laugh:
stroker
06-06-12, 07:39 PM
Interesting bone yard with what looks like a P-51 with a bunch of underwing stores on it.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=34.958677,-117.883848&ie=UTF8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs&hnear=0x80c3cafefecfe12d:0x73ea8588eed27a7b,%2B34% C2%B0+58%27+18.84%22,+-117%C2%B0+52%27+51.93%22&gl=us&t=h&ll=34.940806,-117.89759&spn=0.00082,0.001258&z=20&vpsrc=6
That do look like a Mustang, I'll grant you that.
the cover's for reducing pressure drag
the cover's for reducing pressure drag
Poop bag. :gomer: :D
Time lapse of Enterprise being deliver to and hoisted onto the Intrepid:
UX5GNKAUmfU
This does not belong in NYC. :irked:
-Kevin
Andrew Longman
06-08-12, 01:28 AM
This does not belong in NYC. :irked:
-KevinNot this again. :rolleyes:
Sure it does. Especially if the purpose is to have a lot of people actually see it. Even more so if you expect the people of the world to see it.
And the Intrepid is among the very best and historically significant aviation collections in the country.
cameraman
06-08-12, 01:46 AM
This does not belong in NYC. :irked:
-Kevin
You need to go see that museum.
I don't really care where Enterprise ended up. It is a travesty that one of the orbiters that actually flew did not go to Houston.
Sure it does. Especially if the purpose is to have a lot of people actually see it. Even more so if you expect the people of the world to see it.
Agreed. And solely on this, I would agree with the NYC home.
And the Intrepid is among the very best and historically significant aviation collections in the country.
Not entirely sold on this. I'd agree with KLang, there are probably other significant locations (perhaps not aviation related) where the Enterprise could have been displayed.
Eye balls only - NYC wins.
Slightly OT, I think the F-8 on the Intrepid was a gate guard here at the Johnsville NAWC - used to be parked on Street Rd.
Andrew Longman
06-08-12, 11:49 AM
Not entirely sold on this. I'd agree with KLang, there are probably other significant locations (perhaps not aviation related) where the Enterprise could have been displayed. Agree that somehow Houston should have wound up with one. But that doesn't IMO trump NYC.
Historically significant? Start with the ship itself. How many museums are on an aircraft carrier that saw extensive action in WWII and Vietnam, and recovered Gemini spacecraft?
Add in one of the few Blackbirds on display and a host of other airframes spanning the last 70 years.
I can think of only about 2-3 other museums that come close.
Not this again. :rolleyes:
Sure it does. Especially if the purpose is to have a lot of people actually see it. Even more so if you expect the people of the world to see it.
And the Intrepid is among the very best and historically significant aviation collections in the country.
Let's build another Freedom Tower in New Orleans. That's where the Battle of New Orleans was, and it helped launch the legend of a future American President. There are few locations as historically significant in America that represent all that America is, thus obviously Freedom Tower belongs in New Orleans. QFD
And the Intrepid is among the very best and historically significant aviation collections in the country.
Is there someplace I can get an idea of what's in their historically significant aviation collection because when I go to their site it just looks like an aviation related science museum.
The Shuttle is facing the wrong way.
I have a vision of it going over the side when they try to turn it around. :gomer:
Napoleon
06-08-12, 01:08 PM
Let's build another Freedom Tower in New Orleans. That's where the Battle of New Orleans was, and it helped launch the legend of a future American President. There are few locations as historically significant in America that represent all that America is, thus obviously Freedom Tower belongs in New Orleans. QFD
Plus they have a solid sheet of bedrock on which to build it, just like Manhatten Is.
Is there someplace I can get an idea of what's in their historically significant aviation collection because when I go to their site it just looks like an aviation related science museum.
This is the only list I could find:
Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrepid_Sea-Air-Space_Museum)
On the facility (ship) - another good point. But I was looking at the aircraft itself. I didn't see anything particularly eye-popping. And nothing pre WW2.
Not this again. :rolleyes:
Sure it does. Especially if the purpose is to have a lot of people actually see it. Even more so if you expect the people of the world to see it.
And the Intrepid is among the very best and historically significant aviation collections in the country.
Yup. The Intrepid is significant. Exactly why is she moored there? The same reason the Enterprise is there. Political shenanigans. I guess DC doesn't attract enough peeps to merit worldwide visitors. Houston not receiving a shuttle is complete and utter BS. I gots nothing against NYC, but it had nothing to do with the shuttle. Period. KSC and Houston should have been taken care of first, the Enterprise should have remained in DC and the left coast should get some love to share the love on both coasts. Heck they could have placed one @ Vandenberg on the launch tower they never used. :saywhat:
-Kevin
Napoleon
06-08-12, 02:07 PM
Exactly why is she moored there? The same reason the Enterprise is there. Political shenanigans.
I will go with Occum's Razor on this one and say it has something to do with the fact 8,000,000 people live in that city, 28,000,000 within 100 miles, it is the financial capital of the US (and western world) and is one of the country's top tourist destinations.
(edit - and on top of that one of the top ports in the US, something that is convenient if you need somewhere to part an air craft carrier)
Andrew Longman
06-08-12, 02:07 PM
Yup. The Intrepid is significant. Exactly why is she moored there? The same reason the Enterprise is there. Political shenanigans.Well that and the fact that all her retrofits and upgrades after WWII were done there. And then there is Fleet Week every Memorial Day weekend which brings in a good portion of the USN.
I guess DC doesn't attract enough peeps to merit worldwide visitors.No, compared to NYC it doesn't. Especially if you are talking about the facility at Dulles where Enterprise came from.
As I said, they should have found a way to get a shuttle to Houston, but that need doesn't trump the benefits of displaying it in NYC. How about the LA shuttle? As far as I can tell that is there just so they can put on on the left coast. Talk about shenanigans. ;)
More photos of the Shuttles' travels.
http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2012/06/shuttles-sail-to-their-new-homes/100314/
Andrew Longman
06-08-12, 10:47 PM
Wow. Those are some amazing, very artistic shots. :D:thumbup:
I particularly like the one with the Statue of Liberty in the background and the one that frames Enterprise with a street that looks to be in lower Manhattan looking across the West Side Highway.
And the shot from Weehawken which FWIW is where the NJGP will be. :)
Well that and the fact that all her retrofits and upgrades after WWII were done there. And then there is Fleet Week every Memorial Day weekend which brings in a good portion of the USN. No, compared to NYC it doesn't. Especially if you are talking about the facility at Dulles where Enterprise came from.
As I said, they should have found a way to get a shuttle to Houston, but that need doesn't trump the benefits of displaying it in NYC. How about the LA shuttle? As far as I can tell that is there just so they can put on on the left coast. Talk about shenanigans. ;)
LA built the got damn thing. You are New York. You are where museums for the bankruptcy of modern society go. :gomer:
Andrew Longman
06-09-12, 07:15 AM
LA built the got damn thing. You are New York. You are where museums for the bankruptcy of modern society go. :gomer:Look at gnam's pictures of Enterprise's arrival in NYC . Nuff said. ;)
You mean the mob giving business to its shuttle wing repair shop?
Andrew Longman
06-09-12, 11:18 AM
You mean the mob giving business to its shuttle wing repair shop?:rofl:
Obviously they ignored the advice to accept a "little help" in case "something bad happens"
LA assembled the got damn thing. You are New York. You are where museums for the bankruptcy of modern society go. :gomer:
Fixed. Lots of pieces parts built all over for the shuttle, including a ton of research work done here by the folks @ Battelle and the former Rockwell plant out by CMH. Lots of the piggy pie got spread around, including the mob contractors now in NYC. :gomer:
-Kevin
cameraman
06-13-12, 12:35 PM
How can you argue with this...
http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii35/Cynops/Intrepid.jpg
How can you argue with this...
http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii35/Cynops/Intrepid.jpg
Let me count the ways.... :saywhat:
-Kevin
Endeavor to go from LAX to the Exposition Park museum in LA...12 miles, 2 days, 2 MPH through dtown LA starting 12-Oct. :eek:
http://www.willitsnews.com/ci_21275979/getting-space-shuttle-endeavour-its-new-home-l
-Kevin
Houston's shuttle simulator opens to the public.
http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/2637/hiddenspaceshuttlehoust.jpg
Filling a couple of floors inside Building 16 at the Johnson Space Center, OV-095 doesn't look like its sister ships.
Although it has a fully-accurate flight deck and is laid out to have a payload bay and aft section, the SAIL's lack of wings, tail -- and for that matter, walls -- leaves exposed the mock space shuttle's wires, switches, crawl spaces, steep stairs and ledges.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57494826/nasas-hidden-space-shuttle-opens-in-houston/?tag=re1.channel
I don't know if the other shuttles are open for tours. A real orbiter might draw more tourists, but Houston's display seems like it would be more interesting to visit.
TravelGal
08-17-12, 11:50 PM
Endeavor to go from LAX to the Exposition Park museum in LA...12 miles, 2 days, 2 MPH through dtown LA starting 12-Oct. :eek:
http://www.willitsnews.com/ci_21275979/getting-space-shuttle-endeavour-its-new-home-l
-Kevin
Yep, already wrote it up for my local agent newsletter. LA went ga-ga for the Rock (not the actor) so this should really bring out the peeps.
http://media.brisbanetimes.com.au/selections/space-shuttle-endeavour-makes-last-flight-3649044.html?&exc_from=strap
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/09/19/shuttle-endeavour-los-angeles-nasa/70000655/1#.UFo5baRYuxo
http://io9.com/5944492/xspace-shuttle-endeavours-journey-to-museum-will-require-400-trees-to-be-cut-down
:saywhat: :cry:
-Kevin
Meeting both the Disney and Aviation Geek requirements:
QPK7IlsX2ns#!
Meeting both the Disney and Aviation Geek requirements:
:thumbup:
-Kevin
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/09/fog-delay-space-shuttle-endeavour.html
Change in schedule due to SFO fog. Duh. :shakehead
Endeavour will fly over at least the following sites:
Los Angeles City Hall
California Science Center
Getty Center
Griffith Observatory
Queen Mary
Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach
Malibu, Venice and Huntington beaches
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Universal Studios
Disneyland
-Kevin
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/21/us/endeavour-last-trip/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
Endeavour's three-day piggyback flight was divided into three legs that could be described as scenic routes to showcase the shuttle to the public from coast to coast.
Social media users have shared Endeavour sightings via the hashtags #spottheshuttle and #OV105, the later being Endeavour's "vehicle designation."
-Kevin
Anteater
09-21-12, 07:44 PM
My husband and I watched the Endeavour fly-by from the parking lot at Boeing in Huntington Beach today; it was AWESOME!!!!!! A slow, gracefully cruising 747 with the shuttle aboard, flanked by 2 NASA jet fighters, at about 1000 ft. off the ground and 100 ft. away. I haven't jumped up and down and screamed like that since my last Champ Car race. :cool::thumbup:
So glad we made the trip! The scene in the Boeing parking lot was very festive; there were entire families mixed with current and former Boeing employees. Talked with a couple of employees who had worked on the shuttle program. People were lined up along Bolsa Ave. like a parade was coming. The shuttle was about 2 hours late; we had the news on the radio with updates. When we heard that it was flying over Disneyland, we knew we had about 5 min. to go. Suddenly, we heard people shouting, "It's coming up Bolsa!", and I ran to the street corner just in time to see it pass right in front of me. Hubby shot video with our point & shoot--kind of sketchy because he didn't want to watch the shuttle through the viewfinder. You can see some nice pics and video here, though:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/shuttle-372208-endeavour-space.html
Any other Southlanders see it today?
NASA delayed the flight so the fog could burn off over San Francisco.
BEAT LA!
http://s13.postimage.org/6f2h4ehh3/shuttle1.jpg
TravelGal
09-21-12, 08:01 PM
My husband and I watched the Endeavour fly-by from the parking lot at Boeing in Huntington Beach today; it was AWESOME!!!!!! A slow, gracefully cruising 747 with the shuttle aboard, flanked by 2 NASA jet fighters, at about 1000 ft. off the ground and 100 ft. away. I haven't jumped up and down and screamed like that since my last Champ Car race. :cool::thumbup:
Any other Southlanders see it today?
Love the comparison. Alas, this Southlander is a little too far North to have seen it. I kept getting reports from people and I ran outside every time I thought I heard something. (A lot of trips when you lives as close to Van Nuys airport as I do) but we were just a bit too far away. Would have loved to have seen it in the air.
cameraman
10-07-12, 10:59 PM
The future is now...
Hgkb6U1McOE
You can't see it in that video, but check out the "anomaly" in Engine 1 on the way up hill.
You can see it at 1:30 in this video:
tRTYh71D9P0
The first stage burned about 30 seconds longer than planned to compensate for the failure, and they still ended up in the exact orbit they wanted to be in.
Falcon 9 only needs all 9 engines to get off the pad, after that, it can continue on, despite engine loss - as demonstrated last night. (Thus far, SpaceX has only confirmed that flight computers shut that engine down and adjusted the flight profile to reflect the engine loss.)
They're making this look easy, but it is not an easy business!
SpaceX on what happened...
Approximately one minute and 19 seconds into last night’s launch, the Falcon 9 rocket detected an anomaly on one first stage engine. Initial data suggests that one of the rocket’s nine Merlin engines, Engine 1, lost pressure suddenly and an engine shutdown command was issued immediately. We know the engine did not explode, because we continued to receive data from it. Our review indicates that the fairing that protects the engine from aerodynamic loads ruptured due to the engine pressure release, and that none of Falcon 9’s other eight engines were impacted by this event.
As designed, the flight computer then recomputed a new ascent profile in real time to ensure Dragon’s entry into orbit for subsequent rendezvous and berthing with the ISS. This was achieved, and there was no effect on Dragon or the cargo resupply mission.
Falcon 9 did exactly what it was designed to do. Like the Saturn V, which experienced engine loss on two flights, Falcon 9 is designed to handle an engine out situation and still complete its mission.
SpaceX rocket glitch puts satellite in wrong orbit (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/09/us-space-spacex-idUSBRE8941GP20121009)
The company declined to release details, but Jonathan's Space Report, a website that tracks space launches, says Orbcomm expected its satellite to be placed into an elliptical orbit with a low point of 217 miles and a high point of 466 miles from Earth. That would later become a circular orbit at 466 miles from Earth.
Instead, it ended up in an orbit that ranges from 126 miles to 200 miles.
oops
Here's a good summary of what happened to the Falcon 9, and why the Orbcomm satellite ended up in a lower orbit: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/10/dragon-iss-spacex-review-falcon-9-ascent-issues/
The plan was to have the upper stage do a second upper stage burn 45 minutes after Dragon was released, to raise Orbcomm's orbit. However, because the upper stage burned longer to bring the primary payload (Dragon) to its orbit, there wasn't enough fuel left to both raise Orbcomm's orbit and satisfy NASA's safety margin to ensure that the upper stage didn't end up on a collision course with the ISS.
So, Orbcomm got released where it did. That's life as a secondary payload for ya!
Dragon captured and docked. (http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57529705-76/dragon-cargo-ship-captured-berthed-to-space-station/)
-Kevin
Endeavour on the move.
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/cvplive/cvpstream3&hpt=hp_c2#/video/cvplive/cvpstream3
-Kevin
We should have nabbed it when it stopped in Houston. ;)
We should have nabbed it when it stopped in Houston. ;)
:thumbup: :thumbup: :)
-Kevin
Time lapse of Endeavour through LA. (http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/49433285/?__utma=14933801.1776962472.1350428482.1350428531. 1350428677.3&__utmb=14933801.1.10.1350428677&__utmc=14933801&__utmx=-&__utmz=14933801.1350428677.3.3.utmcsr=google|utmcc n=(organic)|utmcmd=organic|utmctr=(not%20provided)&__utmv=14933801.|8=Earned%20By=msnbc%7Ccover=1^12= Landing%20Content=Mixed=1^13=Landing%20Hostname=ww w.nbcnews.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Ear ned%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=149544502#49433285)
-Kevin
Napoleon
10-18-12, 10:34 AM
Another time lapse, this one from the LA Times:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6m-5mBcuGQ&feature=player_embedded#!
There and Back Again...A space capsule's tale.
it even has a dragon in it. ;)
An unmanned space capsule carrying medical samples from the International Space Station splashed down in the Pacific Ocean Sunday, completing the first official private interstellar shipment under a billion-dollar contract with NASA.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/science/article/Dragon-ship-back-on-Earth-after-space-station-trip-3988103.php
Interstellar?
Saw that on CNN's site earlier. :laugh::shakehead
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49820628
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia has lost contact with most of its civilian satellites as well as the Russian part of the International Space Station after a communications cable broke in Moscow, state-run RIA news agency reported on Wednesday, citing an unnamed source.
RIA cited the source as saying it would take at least 48 hours to fix the cable.
And we're relying on these bozos to get our astronauts into space. :saywhat: :shakehead
-Kevin
I want to throw something @ the TV every time I see this ad. :flame:
qIuoITPnroM
Space Shuttle Crosses 405 Freeway Towed by a Toyota Tundra
:shakehead :saywhat:
-Kevin
At least someone is still dreaming. :)
Say Hello to Stratolaunch, the World's Largest Plane
from the April issue of Popular Mechanics
Stratolaunch measures 385 feet long—more than 100 feet longer than an Airbus A380. It was built from the pieces of two 747s. It will carry a SpaceX rocket into the sky for an aerial launch. The mega jet is coming.
The record-breaking plane, which will have six engines and twin fuselages, is being built to carry a rocket to 30,000 feet. From there, the rocket will drop from the plane and blast into space. The first payloads will consist of satellites and other cargo, but the program's backers say the rocket will eventually carry passengers. The Roc will be a flying launchpad—government and private-sector customers welcome.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/news/say-hello-to-stratolaunch-the-worlds-largest-plane-6705761
http://s8.postimage.org/ibwpyk8yd/stratolaunch_580x481.jpg
They are dreaming.
SpaceX dropped out of that deal, but they've gotten Orbital Sciences on board to replace them: http://www.space.com/18747-stratolaunch-orbital-sciences-replaces-spacex.html
Adventures in Space!
SpaceX launched another Dragon capsule to the International Space Station this morning. First the solar panels wouldn't deploy and then the thrusters wouldn't come online.
Elon Musk's twitter account reports that the thrusters are back online and the panels are deployed. Pretty cool problem solving.
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Space-station-capsule-engine-problem-may-be-fixed-4319586.php
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/SpaceX-Reports-Malfunction-With-Space-Station-4321052.php
I lamented to Elmo earlier today about my space flight thoughts....OK, I ranted. Skylab redux, eh? But hey, I have another tube and a remote and a new 12" digital frame. Don't worry, be happy, yo. :-)
-Kevin
There wasn't a problem with the solar panels deploying, SpaceX didn't deploy them because the vehicle wasn't performing properly. When the thrusters did not come online, the vehicle went into "Safe Mode," and thus didn't command the arrays to deploy.
I read an interesting article yesterday about SpaceX's philosophy, how it saves money, and why it is controversial. Their approach to fault-tolerance is to make the vehicle able to withstand a problem, rather than spend large sums of money preventing problems from happening.
We saw that in their previous launch, where an engine failed on the way to orbit, and the vehicle adjusted. The same happened this time - they had a problem, and the vehicle survived it and was able to recover.
More on this idea here: http://spaceksc.blogspot.com/2013/03/thrill-ride.html
Are we there yet, are we there yet, are we there yet....? ;)
Arrived. Time for a beer. ;)
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/03/us/spacex-launch/index.html
-Kevin
You know, the saddest part of this is that we're likely to be the offshore location for rocket scientists in the near future. Just flipping sad. :(
-Kevin
There wasn't a problem with the solar panels deploying...the vehicle went into "Safe Mode," and thus didn't command the arrays to deploy.
P-R-O-B-L-E-M. ;)
Thanks for the article about SpaceX. Reminds me of the differences between German and American WWII tanks. German tanks were far superior, but maintenance nightmares. Although, SpaceX is only hauling cargo. I don't think these issues will be tolerated once people are inside.
Although, SpaceX is only hauling cargo. I don't think these issues will be tolerated once people are inside.
this. human-rated vehicles cost a lot more for obvious reasons.
Watched the launch live and pondered: How different are the launch dynamics for the manned vs. unmanned shots? Using an unmanned craft, can they subject the capsule to higher G loads or other forces and does this allow lower costs? :confused:
As Elon Musk says: Dragon has a window for a reason.
From what I understand, the flight dynamics of Falcon 9 are pretty good for humans, although not as good as Elon Musk claimed after the first Dragon flight. (Keep in mind the now cancelled Ares was not exactly ideal: http://gizmodo.com/5880850/how-nasa-solved-a-100-million-problem-for-five-bucks )
It will carry people sooner rather than later. And it will have between 9 and 12 unmanned flights under its belt before it happens. Name another manned spacecraft that will have had that many test flights completed before humans strap in.
Most of the SpaceX Haters can be traced to the big aerospace companies that have lived large off of NASA contracts for decades. They're used to being way late and way over budget. SpaceX isn't making them look good.
They can, and will get a human rating. And they're way ahead of their competitors when it comes to putting humans into space from US Soil.
I don't consider myself a SpaceX hater. Just completely underwhelmed. They are just relearning what NASA figured out 40-50 years ago.
Actually, much of what they've done is in collaboration with NASA (and funded by them!)
The big thing SpaceX isn't what they've done, it is how much it costs. They are the cheapest option, by far, to get stuff into space. Which is why the Lockheed Martins and Boeings of the world smack talk them.
This is from almost a year ago: http://www.policymic.com/articles/11354/spacex-spends-320-times-less-on-building-spaceships-than-nasa-does
Anteater
06-17-13, 10:16 PM
Slightly off-topic, but today my husband and I were having lunch outside at the harbor, and we struck up a conversation with a couple of ladies at the next table (thanks to our dog). It turned out that one of them had a son who flew on Endeavour's last mission (STS-134). She showed us her necklace, which was a rendering in gold of the shuttle mission's insignia, and it had flown in space with the crew. It was very cool to see that! :thumbup:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Chamitoff
I don't consider myself a SpaceX hater. Just completely underwhelmed. They are just relearning what NASA figured out 40-50 years ago.
Like JB said, NASA is heavily invested into SpaceX, providing a ton of technical 411. Watch the series When We Left Earth. Krantz is very clear that they started with nothing but a clean sheet of paper. What SpaceX has been doing is proving that their systems, procedures, etc. work as designed, but they have vast NASA resources @ their disposal. The Chinese are learning what NASA learned in the 60s (assuming they haven't already hacked into NASA's systems and stolen the Spaceflight for Dummies playbook). :irked:
Of course I had to chuckle today when the new class of 8 astronauts was announced...but they don't have anything to fly. :saywhat: :shakehead
Anteater, that's way cool. :thumbup: I'm looking forward to see Atlantis in November @ KSC. I haven't been there since 1988.
-Kevin
Andrew Longman
06-17-13, 11:25 PM
Reading Sutter's book on the development of the 747 and was interested to learn that after the Apollo 1 fire NASA realized they were out of control project/program managment-wise and they quietly asked in Boeing to straighten out the Apollo program. Even though Boeing was hemoraging cash because the SST program suddenly failed and the 747 program had yet to gain any meaningful customers and cash orders, they shifted hundreds of engineers to NASA to "bail it out"... accordning to Sutter
It was the right thing to do and even if it was not the right thing for Boeing stockholders in the short term the CEO did it anyway. If as true as it Sutter claims I don't think today's corporate leadership would be so patriotic. Jus' Sayin'
Along with Anteater, I've had a brush with a Shuttle astronaut. In March of 2003 it was discovered that my youngest son had a non-cancerous tumor in his heel. Referred to Dr. Robert Satcher in Chicago. Between the initial appointment and surgery, the good Dr. was selected as an astronaut. My son's surgery was performed on his last day, he actually flew back to Chicago from training for one last round of surgery. Very humble guy, brilliant but humble.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Satcher
I don't think today's corporate leadership would be so patriotic. Jus' Sayin'
NSS. Leadership from that era were cut from a different cloth, and either lived, worked or fought through WWII. They don't call it The Greatest Generation for nothing.
-Kevin
t after the Apollo 1 fire NASA realized they were out of control project/program managment-wise and they quietly asked in Boeing to straighten out the Apollo program.
An uncle, who coincidentally retired as an Exec VP from Boeing, put me onto this book (which I think I've mentioned in other space threads): Angle of Attack (http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/angle-of-attack-mike-gray/1102677524?ean=9780140232806&z=y)
It talks about the Apollo program and earlier stuff from the perspective of Harrison Storms at North American. It paints quite a different picture of the NASA folks and their culpability in the Apollo 1 fire.
It also demonstrates the toll those programs had on both the people and the companies. Lives and families shattered, lives lost. Companies and people driven to their limits.
Regardless of that issue, one thing you do see - that that drive/motivation/determination/will to push on a difficult project doesn't seem to exist anymore. Do we really have the focus and determination to land on and/or lasso an asteroid? Mars? :(
Do we really have the focus and determination to land on and/or lasso an asteroid? Mars? :(
Can't be that difficult if Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck can do it. :gomer:
-Kevin
Atlantis display is now open @ KSC.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57591026-76/space-shuttle-atlantis-on-display-at-new-nasa-exhibit/
-Kevin
More.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/06/25/atlantis-ready-for-next-mission-exhibit/2455983/
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/dream-turning-reality-shuttle-atlantis-exhibit-open-6C10440818
http://blogs.orlandoweekly.com/index.php/2013/06/get-ready-to-geek-out-atlantis-is-on-display-at-kennedy-space-center/
-Kevin
Proton go boom.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_RUSSIA_FAILED_LAUNCH?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-07-02-07-31-51
ogUkEpBRNUg
Brilliant plan to rely on the Russkies to get astronauts to and from the ISS. Genius! :saywhat: :shakehead :irked:
-Kevin
Andrew Longman
07-02-13, 09:22 AM
Proton go boom
Sure took the range safety officer a while to implement the destruct. I am not sure he ever did or if the dynamic pressures just caused fuel to leak and catch fire all at once.
Also not clear from the video but did the payload eject and parachute? If so that's a cool idea.
Sure took the range safety officer a while to implement the destruct. I am not sure he ever did or if the dynamic pressures just caused fuel to leak and catch fire all at once.
Also not clear from the video but did the payload eject and parachute? If so that's a cool idea.
Based on what I heard this AM on Today, it was a $250m loss of 3 satellites. Doesn't look like any parachutes would have survived those flames or low altitude.
Вот дерьмо! (Oh **** in Russkie) :)
EDIT: some more 411 and a history of recent Russkie launch craptasticness...
http://rt.com/news/proton-m-rocket-takeoff-crash-514/
Nappy, nothing to see here. Move along now. :gomer:
-Kevin
Napoleon
07-02-13, 09:55 AM
And a toxic cloud from it is headed towards a nearby city.
http://kloop.kg/files/2013/07/kKjFj79HJk4-450x253.jpg
Russian rockets do not carry self-destruct explosives like Western boosters, which prevented any attempt to destroy the wayward Proton before impact.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1307/01proton/
Space or BUST, Comrade!
Andrew Longman
07-02-13, 12:21 PM
Space or BUST, Comrade!Proton then is basically the T34 of boosters? And the Russian space agency has about the same concern for civilians on the ground as Soviets had for the people of Chernobyl?
Turn up the volume.
Zl12dXYcUTo
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.